The search for E.T. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 06:31 PM

It's apparently perfectly acceptable that scientists at SETI search for inteligent life by sending repetitive patterns blindly into space hoping to get a response.

Ok I can accept that as a form of science.

What they are sending is basically information, prime numbers etc. Knowing that something intelligent has to create the information we hope to receive.

We know intelligence creates information rich systems. No other naturalistic explanation can account for the cause of these systems(as of yet). So finding a return pattern from space would be exciting. To date no luck.

DNA has been said to process, and store more information than anything in the known universe. Since this is such an information rich system can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation of this system?

09-30-2005, 07:03 PM

No.

09-30-2005, 07:50 PM

Does this have an intelligent designer? Or can it be produced by 'random' forces?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/340/well2rw.jpg

How about complex organic molecules that self assemble from carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen?

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 07:59 PM

Good one. Seriously you can smile.

But we already know how a snowflake is formed.

benjdm

09-30-2005, 08:08 PM

As far as I know, we are sending very little. SETI is primarily about listening.

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 08:12 PM

I believe we're doing both. Either way the example still holds.

09-30-2005, 08:40 PM

It wasn't meant to be compelling, and it proves nothing. But I imagine it's surprising to those who have an intuitive idea that random forces can't produce order.

In your question, the concept of 'information' isn't really explored, so I'd like to do that. What exactly is information? Is it a process for producing ordered and complex structures? Is it meaningful data? What is meaningful? How is 'information' different to noise? I'm interested in your ideas on this.

Let me ask you some questions to narrow it down:
- Does the ecosytem of earth contain more information than, say, the surface of mars?
- Does a snowflake contain more information than the water vapor used to produce it?
- Is a planet covered in a variety of organic molecules, such as some DNA precursors, more complex than a similar sized planet covered with nothing but basic elements? Does it contain more information?
- Does a single cell contain more information than an entire human body of trillions of cells?
- Does a mouse brain contain more information than a human brain?
- Does the brain of a whale, 6 times the size of a human's, contain more information than a human brain?

sexdrugsmoney

09-30-2005, 08:50 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
- Does the brain of a whale, 6 times the size of a human's, contain more information than a human brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying it's not the size that counts, but how you use it? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 09:07 PM

6 entries found for information.
To select an entry, click on it.
informationinformation retrievalinformation scienceinformation theoryinformation superhighwayinformation technology

Main Entry: in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "in-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct

Go ahead make your point.

I know you like to type so have at it.

chezlaw

09-30-2005, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's apparently perfectly acceptable that scientists at SETI search for inteligent life by sending repetitive patterns blindly into space hoping to get a response.

Ok I can accept that as a form of science.

What they are sending is basically information, prime numbers etc. Knowing that something intelligent has to create the information we hope to receive.

We know intelligence creates information rich systems. No other naturalistic explanation can account for the cause of these systems(as of yet). So finding a return pattern from space would be exciting. To date no luck.

DNA has been said to process, and store more information than anything in the known universe. Since this is such an information rich system can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation of this system?

[/ QUOTE ]

This looks like leading to a similar bogus discussion as the 'cause of the universe' question. The (faulty) premise this time looks to be.

Seti looks for complex information
Scientists believe such complex information would require an intelligent originator.
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

Perhaps we can avoid going down a long song and dance about the complexity of DNA and see if we all agree the above argument isn't valid.

Then we could discuss what sort of complex information requires an intelligent creator and then we could discuss if DNA is that sort of complex information.

That way we might actually make some progress in understanding each others point of view.

chez

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 10:18 PM

I said.

[ QUOTE ]
can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation

[/ QUOTE ]

You took it as.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we could discuss what sort of complex information requires an intelligent creator and then we could discuss if DNA is that sort of complex information.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife is pregnant with our first child.

A Boy!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My sperm combined with her egg and we created him. I'm not sure if this is a good argument for ID here /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but it's a start.
Jeff

chezlaw

09-30-2005, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I said.

[ QUOTE ]
can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation

[/ QUOTE ]

You took it as.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we could discuss what sort of complex information requires an intelligent creator and then we could discuss if DNA is that sort of complex information.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife is pregnant with our first child.

A Boy!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My sperm combined with her egg and we created him. I'm not sure if this is a good argument for ID here /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but it's a start.
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said.

[ QUOTE ]
can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation

[/ QUOTE ]

You took it as.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we could discuss what sort of complex information requires an intelligent creator and then we could discuss if DNA is that sort of complex information.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife is pregnant with our first child.

A Boy!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My sperm combined with her egg and we created him. I'm not sure if this is a good argument for ID here /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but it's a start.
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Chez.

Aytumious

09-30-2005, 10:37 PM

hurlyburly

09-30-2005, 10:38 PM

Congratulations! You are in for the wildest (and best) time of your life /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

09-30-2005, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I said.

[ QUOTE ]
can't we suppose that intelligence had something to do with the creation

[/ QUOTE ]

You took it as.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood what you said, I was drawing attention to the fact that the complexity of DNA is irrelevent to the ID argument unless you believe:
[ QUOTE ]
Seti looks for complex information
Scientists believe such complex information would require an intelligent originator.
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

[/ QUOTE ]
or can argue why, in this specific case, the two scenarios are analogous.

Otherwise we have a silly discussion about DNA complexity under the misguided view that you believe complexity -> creator (which you don't as you don't believe the faulty premise).

As before, it seems likely you know all this, so what's the purpose of discussing DNA complexity?

chez

Jeff V

09-30-2005, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Seti looks for complex information
Scientists believe such complex information would require an intelligent originator.
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/ QUOTE ]

To the last line above. I said there is no naturalistic way to explain information rich systems(as of yet). DNA was just an example of such a system. You could swap it for...

What I'm trying to get at is matter can't create information.

Man I may have hung myself w/ that last sentence. Getting a little sleepy here.

chezlaw

09-30-2005, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seti looks for complex information
Scientists believe such complex information would require an intelligent originator.
Therefore all complex information requires an intelligent originator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/ QUOTE ]

To the last line above. I said there is no naturalistic way to explain information rich systems(as of yet). DNA was just an example of such a system. You could swap it for...

What I'm trying to get at is matter can't create information.

Man I may have hung myself w/ that last sentence. Getting a little sleepy here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you believe the conclusion of the argument but the way you present it makes it look like it is for similar reasons as to why scientists believe seti could be useful.

I think that if the confusion about what we are discussing isn't cleared up then inevitably we will end up learning nothing from each other. We just end up irritating each other.

I'm sure you have more important things on your mind at the moment but another time maybe we can try to clear up the confusion.

chez

10-01-2005, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Go ahead make your point.

I know you like to type so have at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have a point. I'm attempting to explore the issue of whether information rich systems can result from natural forces and processes, or whether they all require intelligence. I'm trying to isolate the issues here so we can have a meaningful discussion.

Chezlaw's taken this thread in a different direction so let me know when you're ready to resume /images/graemlins/smile.gif

benkahuna

10-01-2005, 06:45 AM

Information is all about interpretation. No interpreter and it's like Homer said about there being anything meaningful happening in a Simpsons episode. It's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

I'm honestly kind of annoyed how your post title suggested something I cared about (SETI) and then went on to propose a completely useful concept (intelligent design).

I'll break it down for you in very simple probabalistic terms. A couple rules.

All probabilities add up to 1 (same as 100 percent).
All probabilities are mutually exclusive.
All probabilities are positive or 0.

P(YG)+P(MS)+P(SE)=1

P(YG) is the probability of your G-d being behind it. P(MS) is the probability that my science can explain it. P(SE) is the probability that something else entirey is occurring.

I think SETI is primarily listening, though we have sent off signals into space intentionally in addition to the signals we have sent off just because they naturally propogated into space.

BTW, SETI has for years allowed people to personally download data to be analyzed on your computer, aiding the project.
If they find a signal that is definitively of intelligent, extraterrestrial origin, you get credit as codiscoverer.

Basically, they're using you to process their massive amount of data.

I'm compelled by the idea of discovering extraterrestrial, intelligent life so I've been sending them back analyzed data sets for 6 years now.

go to

seti at home (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu)

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 09:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm attempting to explore the issue of whether information rich systems can result from natural forces and processes, or whether they all require intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Information = meaningful text, that is complex, in a specific order, and is also non-repeating.

Information can't come from natural or physical laws because they always repeat. They insure that you can't get anything more meaningful-since it's a law it always repeats the same pattern.

It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.)

That should get us started huh?

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 09:53 AM

If information is a massless quantity, and therefore not materialistic how can any materialistic cause explain it's origin?

This is another problem IMO.Information is a different entity that can't be broken down to matter or energy-yet it's real.

Finally what about the fact that this information is at the root of all biological function?

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with this contention but it looks like philosophy not science. Is there any way this contention could be tested?

chez

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way this contention could be tested?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "tested" everyday.

In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need).

As far as the scientific method...

Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way this contention could be tested?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "tested" everyday.

In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need).

As far as the scientific method...

Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So give me a scenario that would disprove your contention.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but that doesn't make all methods of finding the truth science, does it?

chez

benkahuna

10-01-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm attempting to explore the issue of whether information rich systems can result from natural forces and processes, or whether they all require intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Information = meaningful text, that is complex, in a specific order, and is also non-repeating.

Information can't come from natural or physical laws because they always repeat. They insure that you can't get anything more meaningful-since it's a law it always repeats the same pattern.

It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.)

That should get us started huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that your notion of information is vague, imprecise and suffers from the fact that the whole notion of information is a construct.
Meaningful text? How the hell is Adenine, Thymine, Guanosine, Cytosine text?

How about this? Information comes from an observer's interpretation. An observer comes from a mind. A mind comes from biological processes. Biological processes are a result of the big bang.

It seems to me that you conveniently defined information so that it fits with the view of G-d as a creator. When you make the definitions fit the belief, you can't miss. But, it's cheating.

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Biological processes are a result of the big bang.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sentence along with just about every other in your post is wrong.

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way this contention could be tested?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "tested" everyday.

In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need).

As far as the scientific method...

Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So give me a scenario that would disprove your contention.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but that doesn't make all methods of finding the truth science, does it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez-
I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree.

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
chez-
I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to. If ID is not science then there's no problem. The problem is that non-IDers think IDers believe ID is science.

I'm trying to clear that up. Do you think ID is science? if yes then why? and if no then there is no problem.

What's complicated?

chez

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chez-
I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to. If ID is not science then there's no problem. The problem is that non-IDers think IDers believe ID is science.

I'm trying to clear that up. Do you think ID is science? if yes then why? and if no then there is no problem.

What's complicated?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If I say yes I think ID is science, you say well than any truth is science.

Yes I think ID is science, can it be tested with the traditional scientific method? No-not yet, and I concede maybe never. If the evidence we have is pointing towards some thing should it be excluded for that reason alone. Some would say yes, but that to is changing.

I understand some people will never even consider ID because it can't be explained by naturalistis methods. However I don't think it's fair when I or someone in my position can make (what seems to me anyway) a sound argument only to get the response."Nope. That's a fairy tale."

As to why I think ID is a science. That answer is littered all over this board in my responses, and my posts.

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I say yes I think ID is science, you say well than any truth is science.

Yes I think ID is science, can it be tested with the traditional scientific method? No-not yet, and I concede maybe never. If the evidence we have is pointing towards some thing should it be excluded for that reason alone. Some would say yes, but that to is changing.

I understand some people will never even consider ID because it can't be explained by naturalistis methods. However I don't think it's fair when I or someone in my position can make (what seems to me anyway) a sound argument only to get the response."Nope. That's a fairy tale."

As to why I think ID is a science. That answer is littered all over this board in my responses, and my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that its wrong to think ID is a fairy tale just because its not science. More fool them if they claim that.

but if it can't be explained by naturalistic methods then it shouldn't be confused with things that are explainable by naturalistic methods. Now I understand your position on that perhaps I can understand something else:

Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given?

chez

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that there is no naturalistic explanation for information rich systems.(as of yet) I think this and many other things point to design.

Maybe we should start an "Is ID Science?" thread.

Aytumious

10-01-2005, 04:27 PM

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that there is no naturalistic explanation for information rich systems.(as of yet) I think this and many other things point to design.

Maybe we should start an "Is ID Science?" thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your initial point was about the complexity of DNA. If you want to explain why you think ID is true (which I assume is the purpose of the thread) then the issue is why complexity requires a designer, not how complex DNA is.

Why you think complexity requires a designer is what I am trying to understand. We've established its not for naturalistic reasons so I was exploring whether its for logical reasons. Hence the question.

If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right?

What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID. We've dealt with the natural and hopefully I've understood you on the logical.

chez

Jeff V

10-01-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I came to this belief through faith in January 2005. For about 2 years before that i studied string theory. Though faith in God brought me to believe in creationism, I don't feel I need to hide behind boof there's a tree either.

chezlaw

10-01-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I came to this belief through faith in January 2005. For about 2 years before that i studied string theory. Though faith in God brought me to believe in creationism, I don't feel I need to hide behind boof there's a tree either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So having made that clear, I can't imagine anyone has any issue with ID other than as they don't share your faith they don't agree with you.

I'm sorry if I'm a pain, I just wanted to establish whether ID believers required faith to believe it, be a lot easier if they just said so straight up.

chez